Refresh Sandbox

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: refreshing resets the sandbox to the current production state, and the operation is asynchronous. This adds valuable context. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), though it could further detail potential data loss in the sandbox, but the reset semantics are clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary context: how it works, prerequisite/alternative, and async monitoring. No filler or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex (async refresh) and has no output schema. The description covers the main workflow and points to monitoring via sibling tool. It could mention return behavior (e.g., whether an operation ID is returned), but overall it gives sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly and follow up.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions for sandboxName, licenseType, and autoActivate. The description doesn't add extra parameter-level detail, but it reinforces that sandboxName must refer to an existing sandbox. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Refreshes an existing sandbox org by re-copying it from production via the Tooling API.' It distinguishes itself from sf_create_sandbox by specifying 'The sandbox must already exist (use sf_create_sandbox for new sandboxes).' This is specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: when to use (for existing sandboxes) and when not to use (for new sandboxes, pointing to sf_create_sandbox). It also mentions the asynchronous nature and directs users to sf_list_sandboxes for monitoring, giving clear guidance on next steps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.